This is an uncharitable conclusion. Could also be mistaken, or missing information, or using different definitions than you are, or any number of other possibilities.
Also, you’ve misread the exchange. army1987 was arguing that radical feminists are a similar class to anarchists, and so the language is justified.
The exchange I misread was further down (I thought army1987 was referring to anarchists when they were referring to Zen Buddhists), but I don’t think it’s uncharitable. Generally, anyone exposed to anarchist thought in any way, especially post-90s anarchist propaganda, has a lot of exposure to the interrelatedness of feminism and anarchist such that I can safely presume that anyone identifying as an anarchist but not a feminist is being dishonest with themselves.
It should go without saying that if one assumes the premise that all of those who want to get women out of cages are feminists, then army1987′s comment logically implies that all anarchists are feminists.
The reactionary anti-feminist currents within the anarchist mileu often disavow feminism both personally and as an implication of anarchism, since anarchism is for “freedom for everyone” and feminism is for “freedom for women.” Typically, this goes along with making the (false) claim that “patriarchy oppresses everyone,” or that “Identity politics is a waste of time.”
You’re looking at this in a very set-theoretic way as an outsider to that particular community, so it’s not surprising that you don’t get this, but you should be able to find any of the above arguments in any discussion of anarchism and feminism on the Internet.
I can safely presume that anyone identifying as an anarchist but not a feminist is being dishonest with themselves.
currents within the anarchist mileu often disavow feminism both personally and as an implication of anarchism, since anarchism is for “freedom for everyone” and feminism is for “freedom for women.”
Wait, what? I’m confused, how do these not contradict?
or that “Identity politics is a waste of time.”
Is that intended to fall under the “(false) claim” modifier?
This is an uncharitable conclusion. Could also be mistaken, or missing information, or using different definitions than you are, or any number of other possibilities.
Also, you’ve misread the exchange. army1987 was arguing that radical feminists are a similar class to anarchists, and so the language is justified.
The exchange I misread was further down (I thought
army1987was referring to anarchists when they were referring to Zen Buddhists), but I don’t think it’s uncharitable. Generally, anyone exposed to anarchist thought in any way, especially post-90s anarchist propaganda, has a lot of exposure to the interrelatedness of feminism and anarchist such that I can safely presume that anyone identifying as an anarchist but not a feminist is being dishonest with themselves.It should go without saying that if one assumes the premise that all of those who want to get women out of cages are feminists, then army1987′s comment logically implies that all anarchists are feminists.
The reactionary anti-feminist currents within the anarchist mileu often disavow feminism both personally and as an implication of anarchism, since anarchism is for “freedom for everyone” and feminism is for “freedom for women.” Typically, this goes along with making the (false) claim that “patriarchy oppresses everyone,” or that “Identity politics is a waste of time.”
You’re looking at this in a very set-theoretic way as an outsider to that particular community, so it’s not surprising that you don’t get this, but you should be able to find any of the above arguments in any discussion of anarchism and feminism on the Internet.
Wait, what? I’m confused, how do these not contradict?
Is that intended to fall under the “(false) claim” modifier?